Appeal No. 1998-2275 Page 7
Application No. 08/428,253
15) is simply speculative. It is our opinion that the
examiner has not provided any evidence or scientific reasoning
to establish the reasonableness of his belief that the above-
noted limitation is an inherent characteristic of Hartog. In
addition, we find that it more likely than not that primary
trough 6 of Hartog is subject to "a negative pressure therein"
due to the action of fan 9.
For the reasons set forth above, Hartog does not meet the
above-noted limitation of claims 14 and 15 and therefore does
not anticipate claims 14 and 15. In light of the foregoing,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14 and 15, as
well as claims 16-18, 24 and 26 dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 20-
23, 25, 27, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007